From Ballotpedia
Nebraska Amendment 3 appeared on the November 2006 general election ballot in Nebraska, where it was defeated.
- Yes: 215,827 (39.1%)
- No: 336,410 (60.9%)
Objectives of the initiative
This would increase the amount of annual funding for the Compulsive Gamblers Assistance Fund in Nebraska by up to $495,000, redirecting that money from the Nebraska Environmental Trust Fund, education, and the Nebraska State Fair Board. It is not an actual increase of $500,000, because subsection (3)(a)(v) of Article III-24 directs that 1% of net lottery proceeds remaining after the initial transfer of $500,000 (or $1,000,000 if this amendment had passed) shall also be directed to the Compulsive Gamblers Assistance Fund. For example, under the existing law, if net annual lottery proceeds had equalled $10,000,000, then $500,000 + (0.01*$9,500,000), or $595,000, would go the Compulsive Gamblers Assistance Fund; whereas if this amendment had passed, that amount would have increased to $1,000,000 + (0.01*$9,000,000), or $1,090,000, for an increase of $495,000. This difference remains constant as long as the net annual lottery proceeds are $1,000,000 or greater, the reason for this being that $495,000 is 1% less than the flat rate increase of $500,000, and the entire flat rate is excluded from the additional 1% with or without this amendment.
Arguments for the amendment
- The lottery is designed to make money from responsible gamblers taking on a risk that they understand, but if it is creating an opportunity for compulsive gamblers to ruin their finances and damage the lives of their loved ones, then it is the responsibility of the people putting on the lottery, in this case the state, to use some of that money to fund treatment programs for the gambling addicts.
Arguments against the amendment
- This money could be going to more important causes, such as education.
- If an additional influx of money to the Compulsive Gamblers Assistance Fund succeeds in reducing gambling, then that will further reduce funds going to education, protecting the environment, etc., whereas if it fails to reduce gambling, then it will simply be a waste of $495,000 annually.
- Rather than increasing funding, the state should focus on streamlining the current program, by making it more effective and efficient.
Campaign finance
- Donors for the campaign for the measure:[1]
- YES ON AMENDMENT 3: $15,682
- Total: $15,682
External links
References
- ↑ Follow the Money, "Donors"
You can improve this article by supplying vote totals and percentages.
